Maybe someone can explain to me how they managed to heat a metal to 2,314 °C within moments on only setting 7 but can't vaporize a person contrary to all the dialogue.

I don't think you have the competence to even being to explain what this proves about 'vaporizing a person'. Care to give it a shot?

Further, as Mike noted in the canon database years go - anyone can plainly see, smoke continues to pour out from the pile of scrap metal after they have finished firing. It is not 'vaporizing', but burning. Of course, some (obviously tiny) portion would have been vaporized on initial contact.

It's quite likely that noranium has an extreme reaction to nadion particles. It is clear that different metals have different reaction rates, evidenced by phasers failing do damage to toranium door inlays at maximum power (DS9: 'The Forsaken').

The bulk of the argument is not that phasers would be unable to vapourise a person, but that we clearly see them not doing so.

The Starfleet Technical manual refers to the effects of phasers on high settings as 'disintegration', and the TNG Technical Manual describes it as 'disruption'.

I wrote:

Do you have any examples to support the idea of incomplete vapourisation?

Are you going to make any attempt to answer the main point I was making in that post (a point which Connor MacLeod elaborated on quite succinctly) ?

And can you explain how phasers are able to achieve all of these amazing effects by firing a stream of nadion particles and EM radiation at the target?

I should also note that if you watch the clip above, at around 1:53 they actually put out the "burning noranium" with dirt/sand or whatever it is,

The transcript for the episode says the following:

The Vengeance Factor wrote:

BRULL: Cowards! (He puts the fire out with a bucket of soil)

Hey look fire! It actually even looks like smoke rather than vapor. If it was raised to vaporization that rapidly, we wouldn't be seeing smoke/steam of any kind, at least not like that, unless we're vaporizing very TINY quantitites (and that could just as easily be part of the self sustaining reaction that is clearly going on.)

One could go on about how we aren't told whether the degrees are C, K, or F, or how they misuse terminology there (its quite clear they are talking about boiling point, rather than point that it vaporizes. At boiling point matter may begin to evaporate, but it won't magically transform into vapour spontaneously.)

Just to do a fun illustrative number. Lets assume "Noranium" wsa actually aluminum. According to here aluminum powder auto-ignites at around 760C. here lists the specific heat of Aluminum as being around 920 J/kg*C. Density is around 2700 kg/m^3 IIRC. Assuming a 30 cm cube was heated (rough estimate guessed on eyball scaling, probably generous) and a 50% solid mass (which again is generous) call it around 40 kg "ignited'. Assuming a 20C "Room temperature" starting value it would take ~28 MJ, delivered by 3 phasers over several seconds to heat that mass. Works roughly as an order of magnitude calc, but I'm I'm overstating some of the values (mass, etc.) even if inefficiencies would also raise the calc.

Just to do a fun illustrative number. Lets assume "Noranium" wsa actually aluminum. According to here aluminum powder auto-ignites at around 760C. here lists the specific heat of Aluminum as being around 920 J/kg*C. Density is around 2700 kg/m^3 IIRC. Assuming a 30 cm cube was heated (rough estimate guessed on eyball scaling, probably generous) and a 50% solid mass (which again is generous) call it around 40 kg "ignited'. Assuming a 20C "Room temperature" starting value it would take ~28 MJ, delivered by 3 phasers over several seconds to heat that mass. Works roughly as an order of magnitude calc, but I'm I'm overstating some of the values (mass, etc.) even if inefficiencies would also raise the calc.

Your recollection of density is spot-on. Interestingly enough, aluminium melts at 660ºC and boils at 2470ºC. (vapourisation temperature of noranium carbide was stated at 2314ºC) Apparently noranium is less durable against heat than aluminium!

Do you have any examples to support the idea of incomplete vapourisation?

sure

episode "Retrospect"

Quote:

SEVEN [OC]: I'm at the weapons range. Kovin had taken us there to evaluate various hand held firearms he wished to offer in trade. He attempted to impress us with a demonstration of the weapons destructive capabilities. My role was to provide a more objective analysis.KOVIN: Terrawatt powered particle beam rifle, four microsecond recharge cycle, ten kilometre range.PARIS: Definitely not standard Starfleet issue. What do you think?SEVEN: Seventy two percent fragmentation, twenty eight percent vaporization. Crude, but efficient.

Since it wasn't able to vaporize the other 72% then it's incomplete vaporization.

Too bad that was a particle beam rifle, and not a phaser.

Phasers beams are particle beams otherwise the beam would be traveling at the speed of light.

Meanwhile, back on page 6 of this thread, my post still stands unanswered. There could be several reasons for Darthy's conspicuous silence on the matter of his own lies and omissions, and I'm not about to be judgemental. Still, if we boil it down to a single root cause, it could be the fact that reasoned debate is as as alien to him as integrity.

Of course, I'm open to suggestions and/or actual discussion of my points. Yes, even from Darthy. That's assuming he knows how to do so.

the calculations done on the animated series outrank what's stated in books since the animated series is T-canon.

O darthy wants to argue cartoon canon now? OK, that then means that thousands of AATs and starfighters fit into a single Acclamator as seen in the Battle of Muunilinst, which proves SW has TARDIS style space-time compression technology available. Explains also the ever expanding and shrinking Malevolence. Thank you, darthy, for handing SW yet another superior technology.

the calculations done on the animated series outrank what's stated in books since the animated series is T-canon.

O darthy wants to argue cartoon canon now? OK, that then means that thousands of AATs and starfighters fit into a single Acclamator as seen in the Battle of Muunilinst, which proves SW has TARDIS style space-time compression technology available. Explains also the ever expanding and shrinking Malevolence. Thank you, darthy, for handing SW yet another superior technology.

the cartoon is C-canon, not T-canon. We see windu take out a huge army too in this cartoon. I think this does prove my point that things in C-canon don't represent reality all too well but C-canon is what people cherry picked to exaggerate star wars capabilities. Supposedly, anything in star wars books and cartoons is no longer canon if it is contradicted by something on a higher level like T-canon and G-canon.

Quote:

That was four posts ago. Try to keep up.

The particle beam rifle referred to in VOY:'Retrospect' was not a phaser, which is why they didn't call it a phaser.

the weapons dealer called it a particle beam rifle, that doesn't mean they aren't based on the same technology. But let's forget that one. Okay here's an example of partial vaporization in Star Trek 6:

Quote:

CHEKOV: Why not simply vaporise them?VALERIS: Like this?KLAXON: Wails.VALERIS: At ease. As you know, Commander Chekov, no one can fire an unauthorised phaser aboard a starship. ...Suppose when they returned they threw the boots into the refuse?

She shoots a container and the container vaporizes but some of the material in the container was still there. Someone else was complaining earlier also that phasers always have just enough energy to vaporize everything, never too much or too little. This is an example of too little since some of the contents of the container still remained.

Here's another example of partial vaporization:

See the vapor?

Quote:

And can you explain how phasers are able to achieve all of these amazing effects by firing a stream of nadion particles and EM radiation at the target?

This question can be asked whether you believe the phasers vaporize or not. Obviously we don't know if that's all they are firing.

Quote:

You suspend disbelief for the sake of plot, not for the sake of winning arguments.

I beg to differ here. If we assume that they vaporize their targets as stated then we can use that to figure out how powerful a phaser beam is. More powerful than a blaster considering a blaster cannot vaporize a person. I don't think a blaster can do this either:

Hey look fire! It actually even looks like smoke rather than vapor. If it was raised to vaporization that rapidly, we wouldn't be seeing smoke/steam of any kind, at least not like that, unless we're vaporizing very TINY quantitites (and that could just as easily be part of the self sustaining reaction that is clearly going on.)

Because you say so. Since we do not know what noranium is, aside from their mention of it in the episode, we're not in much of a position to question what its vaporization should look like. Noranium vaporizes into a smoke-like gas. That's what I get out of this scene. Riker inquired about the vaporization temperature then they shot at the material and we saw gas.

Quote:

It's quite likely that noranium has an extreme reaction to nadion particles. It is clear that different metals have different reaction rates, evidenced by phasers failing do damage to toranium door inlays at maximum power (DS9: 'The Forsaken').

The bulk of the argument is not that phasers would be unable to vapourise a person, but that we clearly see them not doing so.

Toranium is mentioned in only two episodes. This doesn't contribute to anything chain reaction or directed energy.

Quote:

The Starfleet Technical manual refers to the effects of phasers on high settings as 'disintegration', and the TNG Technical Manual describes it as 'disruption'.

The Technical manual isn't a valid resource anymore than you would consider the star trek encyclopedia valid which does say they vaporize.

Quote:

Still waiting on those answers.

Cute. Last I checked it was 12 people making points against me to debunk. I'm like a rockstar now. You're in no position to complain if I don't have time to give you an autograph. Consider it a luxury if I even bother to respond to any of your responses until I've had time to get to everyone else.

the calculations done on the animated series outrank what's stated in books since the animated series is T-canon.

O darthy wants to argue cartoon canon now? OK, that then means that thousands of AATs and starfighters fit into a single Acclamator as seen in the Battle of Muunilinst, which proves SW has TARDIS style space-time compression technology available. Explains also the ever expanding and shrinking Malevolence. Thank you, darthy, for handing SW yet another superior technology.

the cartoon is C-canon, not T-canon.

TCW is T-canon. You even quoted yourself saying so.

darthy wrote:

She shoots a container and the container vaporizes but some of the material in the container was still there. Someone else was complaining earlier also that phasers always have just enough energy to vaporize everything, never too much or too little. This is an example of too little since some of the contents of the container still remained.

Do we get a clear shot of how much was in the container? The container was neatly destroyed, leaving (quite possibly all of) the contents.

darthy wrote:

See the vapor?

Interesting example to bring up- Not only is it probably the only evidence to suggest any vapourisation occurring at all, if phasers were DET (+ technowank transporter ability), why didn't they work as well as usual in this instance?

darthy wrote:

Quote:

And can you explain how phasers are able to achieve all of these amazing effects by firing a stream of nadion particles and EM radiation at the target?

This question can be asked whether you believe the phasers vaporize or not. Obviously we don't know if that's all they are firing.

A simple 'no' would have sufficed.Nadion particles and EM are the only things phasers have ever been stated to fire, IIRC.

darthy wrote:

Quote:

You suspend disbelief for the sake of plot, not for the sake of winning arguments.

I beg to differ here. If we assume that they vaporize their targets as stated then we can use that to figure out how powerful a phaser beam is. More powerful than a blaster considering a blaster cannot vaporize a person.

It would appear that you are definitely suspending disbelief (and making up extremely convoluted explanations) to try and support the idea that phasers are DET. It is rather pointless- they are actually more impressive as a chain-reaction weapon (vapourisation or not) , because they're more efficient that way.

darthy wrote:

Because you say so. Since we do not know what noranium is, aside from their mention of it in the episode, we're not in much of a position to question what its vaporization should look like. Noranium vaporizes into a smoke-like gas. That's what I get out of this scene. Riker inquired about the vaporization temperature then they shot at the material and we saw gas.

Did you look at the clip that Connor linked to?Check it out!There is a fire, for fuck's sake! Are you blind as well as stupid? It's smoke.

darthy wrote:

Quote:

The Starfleet Technical manual refers to the effects of phasers on high settings as 'disintegration', and the TNG Technical Manual describes it as 'disruption'.

The Technical manual isn't a valid resource anymore than you would consider the star trek encyclopedia valid which does say they vaporize.

Technical Manuals. Two sources say it doesn't vapourise. One says it does.

darthy wrote:

Quote:

Still waiting on those answers.

Cute. Last I checked it was 12 people making points against me to debunk. I'm like a rockstar now. You're in no position to complain if I don't have time to give you an autograph. Consider it a luxury if I even bother to respond to any of your responses until I've had time to get to everyone else.

Perhaps if you spent less time wanking on your self of self-importance, and more time addressing the myriad points that have been brought up against you, you wouldn't have so many unanswered questions. It is also highly likely that you don't have answers, and are simply avoiding them.

Sure. That's about the amount of vapor i get while boiling water in order to cook some rice or noodles. It's nowhere near enough to be the remnant of several pounds of flesh (which is the damage we see here).

darthy wrote:

I beg to differ here. If we assume that they vaporize their targets as stated then we can use that to figure out how powerful a phaser beam is. More powerful than a blaster considering a blaster cannot vaporize a person. I don't think a blaster can do this either:

So just because they use the word "vaporization", we must assume that it turns the stuff into vapor?Can we also assume that phaser rifes are, in fact, ejecting chemically propelled metal projectiles trough a rifled barrel?Can we therefore assume that a laser cannon is, in fact, a piece of renessaince artillery propelling large metal balls via gunpowder?Can we therefore assume that a turbolaser battery is, in fact, a group of mortars or cannons?That what these words originally meant. According to your "logic", we would have to use these definitions and invent elaborate technobabble-solutions in order to describe the fact that they are obviously not. Like you did with your "it get's transported away"-handwave, which does not have a SINGLE fact on it's side.

We do NOT see any significant amounts of vapor from the damage phasers do. Sometimes we see SOME stuff that could be vapor, but that vapor is never at boiling temperature (which water vapor would be, and humans are mostly water), not present in any significant quantity and it could also be smoke in many cases.If it does not turn the target into vapor, then it does not vaporize the target. Phasers do not turn targets into vapor, since the mass of the target does not get turned into vapor. At best they do, sometimes, procude small amounts of vapor as a side-effect of their mechanism. But we can easily show that that mechanism is NOT vaporization, since it does not procude sufficient vapor.

the cartoon is C-canon, not T-canon. We see windu take out a huge army too in this cartoon. I think this does prove my point that things in C-canon don't represent reality all too well but C-canon is what people cherry picked to exaggerate star wars capabilities. Supposedly, anything in star wars books and cartoons is no longer canon if it is contradicted by something on a higher level like T-canon and G-canon.

darthy, what do you think the "T" in "T-canon" actually stands for? Both cartoon shows belong to T-canon regardless of your wailing and gnashing of teeth. The cherrypicking is all yours.

As for the vaporisation argument, does anyone remeber that scene in STVI where Valeris disintegrates a cooking pot with a phaser which however somehow leaves the stew inside perfectly intact (complete with stirring sticking out)? How does that make for vaporisation?

Meanwhile, back on page 6 of this thread, my post still stands unanswered. There could be several reasons for Darthy's conspicuous silence on the matter of his own lies and omissions, and I'm not about to be judgemental. Still, if we boil it down to a single root cause, it could be the fact that reasoned debate is as as alien to him as integrity.

Of course, I'm open to suggestions and/or actual discussion of my points. Yes, even from Darthy. That's assuming he knows how to do so.

You told me to fuck off and never posted since. When you tell someone to fuck off it's usually a dismissal. We can go back to your posts since you're easy pickings.

Quote:

Or maybe, now that you've presented yet another example of something other than a neural pattern containing the memories of a person, you'll finally stop undermining your own argument?

If you want to go down that route, episode "Similitude" would also prove that DNA can contain the memories of anyone. The borg have access to the DNA of a person after they are assimilated. That's just one more avenue to their memories.

Strange no one's brought this up this fallacy when they've given me links to prove their points. I didn't say it was true because of the link. I said it shouldn't be considered such an unreasonable conclusion to reach if memory alpha reached the same conclusion.

Quote:

If you want to claim omnipotence, a perfect process, or anything involving "they know everything", then yes, the onus is on you to prove it. This is grade-school logic at best.

Actually I don't want to claim a perfect process since I don't need to. This was all brought up while you were questioning a borgs ability to take over the death star. They already have the death star in this scenario, it's hasn't been much of a point of contention for a while now. It's also not stated in dialogue the transfer isn't complete but dialogue does state that the transfer is and nothing conclusively contradicts that.

Quote:

A non sequitur, in which you claim the Borg wouldn't be able to defeat enemies if they were dumb. We could just as easily point to Malaria, whose ability to kill humans and spread itself is unmatched by any one human country. Thus, by your logic, Malaria would be your intellectual superior.

Also a non sequitur. Malaria don't consider humans enemies since malaria don't possess consciousness they have no sense of what an enemy even is nor do they know how to assimilate with nano technology. I was speaking of the borg's ability to operate and maintain their technology or see drones demonstrate knowledge of temporal mechanics, quadric field theory, spatial harmonics, know about history of different cultures, how to beat tuvok at Vulcan kal-toh etc.. If they were dumb they just wouldn't know how to assimilate other races or have all this vast knowledge.

Quote:

An appeal to the authority of the perpetually lowest-ranked and most gullible (and often punished) officer in Star Trek, who for an encore also appears sexually maladjusted. This part of your defence not only rests on his infallibility, but on his opinion of a physically striking woman who walks around in a skin-tight suit and who has, more than once, appeared in his dreams.

Appeal to authority to elements in star trek canon doesn't apply as a fallacy in this case but more as a rule to determine what's true or not. It's like appealing to law to determine what's legal or not. Think tank also showed interest in seven of nine because of her intelligence.

Quote:

An ad hominem whose sole merit lies in being so clearly a case of projection. You have demonstrated no bias in my statements; you just very much want it to exist, because you can't yourself understand any other motivation. I simply point toward Janeway's own sales pitch, which managed to convince the Borg without even mentioning the Doctor. Well, that, and the little conversation in the episode you refer to which you, oh, failed to mention. What was it? Oh yes.

Not really, I just concluded that you're bias against all the evidence because "we know the borg are dumb". I was refuted your own ad hominem against the borg there.

Quote:

I did. Scorpion, part I clearly shows that something is lost.

Why? Because Janeway says the borg don't investigate? Janeway gave the borg a sample of data which showed the borg nanoprobes assimilating species 8472's cells. That was her bargaining chip here. Just because the borg have all the knowledge of someone assimilated doesn't mean they would choose to apply it. How does that prove the borg don't transfer all knowledge from assimilation someone? Judging from Janeway's statement, the borg use a collective instinct which doesn't include much investigating.

"Star Wars: The Clone Wars" animated series is T-canon"Star Wars: Clone Wars" is C-canon. It's a cartoon that aired between 2003 and 2005.

These are different shows we're talking about.

Quote:

Do we get a clear shot of how much was in the container? The container was neatly destroyed, leaving (quite possibly all of) the contents.

But possibly some of the contents in the container were vaporized. Nevertheless, you asked for examples which support the idea of partial vaporization. That's what I gave you.

Quote:

Interesting example to bring up- Not only is it probably the only evidence to suggest any vapourisation occurring at all, if phasers were DET (+ technowank transporter ability), why didn't they work as well as usual in this instance?

Because the phaser setting wasn't high enough to vaporize all of him.

we see parts of his face disappear in the same manner that you see someone being vaporized disappear and what is left is someone partial vaporized. This is what you wanted, is it not? No need to shift the goal post.

Quote:

A simple 'no' would have sufficed.Nadion particles and EM are the only things phasers have ever been stated to fire, IIRC.

They've also have been demonstrated to fire force fields before according to episode "Extreme Risk"

Quote:

Did you look at the clip that Connor linked to?Check it out!There is a fire, for fuck's sake! Are you blind as well as stupid? It's smoke.

I see a white glow with gas coming out of it. Are you trying to say that smoke can't be vapor? If neuranium contains carbon or something similar to carbon, it could look like smoke too.

Quote:

Technical Manuals. Two sources say it doesn't vapourise. One says it does.

shame on you for using non-canon material as supporting evidence. You almost sound like you have a brain of your own going outside the box like that if you weren't wrong.

page 136 of star trek the next generation technical manual:

Quote:

Noranium only appeared in one. Strange that you would try to dismiss Toranium for its rarity, when it was being compared to something even more rarely seen.

I said that because we don't know how strong it is. It's strength could explain why it wasn't vaporized by a directed energy weapon. The Noranium is another example of partial vaporization.

Quote:

darthy, what do you think the "T" in "T-canon" actually stands for? Both cartoon shows belong to T-canon regardless of your wailing and gnashing of teeth. The cherrypicking is all yours.

As for the vaporisation argument, does anyone remeber that scene in STVI where Valeris disintegrates a cooking pot with a phaser which however somehow leaves the stew inside perfectly intact (complete with stirring sticking out)? How does that make for vaporisation?

Yeah it stands for television canon. So the cartoon should be T-canon for that reason, makes sense yes? I raised this same point before when I argued the cartoon was t-canon but it's not:

Sure. That's about the amount of vapor i get while boiling water in order to cook some rice or noodles. It's nowhere near enough to be the remnant of several pounds of flesh (which is the damage we see here).

of course, that's why I called it an example of partial vaporization.

Quote:

So just because they use the word "vaporization", we must assume that it turns the stuff into vapor?

Does that really sound like a figure of speech? If it is a figure of speech, we see this same figure of speech used by Jem'Hardar, Cardassians, EMH, to name a few.

There's no reason to assume the dialogue is wrong about the visuals unless we can prove that they aren't being vaporized. All that's been done by the pro-star wars folk is that they eye-balled the footage and said "naa we don't see how that could be vaporized therefore it wasn't" demonstrating a false dichotomy being that there isn't enough investigation or information to prove that vaporization couldn't happen this way. In any event no one knows what phasers are doing based on visual inspection alone, they've made guesses but don't know for sure. Since we don't know what the phaser is doing, I default to the dialogue which says vaporization.

Quote:

Can we also assume that phaser rifes are, in fact, ejecting chemically propelled metal projectiles trough a rifled barrel?

No but we can assume that they are weapons fired from the shoulder hence the name.

Quote:

That what these words originally meant. According to your "logic", we would have to use these definitions and invent elaborate technobabble-solutions in order to describe the fact that they are obviously not. Like you did with your "it get's transported away"-handwave, which does not have a SINGLE fact on it's side.

if what you said were true they could have said they disintegrate or something else instead of vaporize. Why do they call it vaporize then? The popular theory is that phasers turn the body into neutrinos causing them to disappear that way. Perhaps the heat that would have been given off from vaporization is controlled by turning the target into neutrinos before the heat can cause any damage.

All speculation aside, the real reason why vaporization doesn't look like what it should look like is because of the limitations in the visual effect of the scenes. Ronald D. Moore, writer and producer, says:

Quote:

"The weapons are way too powerful to present them in any realistic kind of way. Given the real power of a hand phaser, we shouldn't be able to show ANY firefights on camera where the opponents are even in sight of each other, much less around the corner! It's annoying, but just one of those things that we tend to slide by in order to concentrate on telling a dramatic and interesting story." - Ronald D. Moore

We see this kind of problem both in star wars and star trek when we hear sounds in space. That's not supposed to be possible either. All we can do is deal with the limited visuals and assume some sort of explanation exists so that the dialogue and visuals don't contradict each other.

Which is why i was talking about "pounds of flesh", because that's at least what's gone here. Just imagine buying a bit of meat at a supermarket, preferrably hacked meat. Imagine half a pound if it, and then look at the gaps in that human torso. Then remember that humans are made out of ~70% water.Now imagine taking that amount of water and turning it into steam (which is vapor, if you don't know that). Nowhere near enough.

Quote:

Does that really sound like a figure of speech? If it is a figure of speech, we see this same figure of speech used by Jem'Hardar, Cardassians, EMH, to name a few.

Which, incidentially, all use the same language (thanks to the universal translator).

Quote:

There's no reason to assume the dialogue is wrong about the visuals unless we can prove that they aren't being vaporized. All that's been done by the pro-star wars folk is that they eye-balled the footage and said "naa we don't see how that could be vaporized therefore it wasn't" demonstrating a false dichotomy being that there isn't enough investigation or information to prove that vaporization couldn't happen this way. In any event no one knows what phasers are doing based on visual inspection alone, they've made guesses but don't know for sure. Since we don't know what the phaser is doing, I default to the dialogue which says vaporization.

We CAN prove that it does NOT vaporize human beings, nor almost anything else we saw. Because there is no VAPOR. Saying "i see no vapor, therefore it did not get turned into vapor" is perfectly valid and not a fallacy. In case you don't know - vapor is generally not invisible, and it always interacts with it's environment. When a human being get's vaporized, we should see clouds of superheated steam boiling everyone else around that person to death - we never see that, despite such a function being highl usefull when you shoot at a group of enemies. Heck, if phasers could put out that kind of energy, you could just aim in the general direction of the enemy and boil him alive by vaporizing some rocks near him.

Quote:

No but we can assume that they are weapons fired from the shoulder hence the name.

Moron. The technical definition of the word "rifle" means "shoulder-fired firearm with a rifled barrel". A firearm is further defined as "a weapon that projects one or several projectiles via chemical propellant".Likewise, the technical definition of "vaporization" means "turned into vapor by rapid heating" (otherwise it's just evaporation). You assume that, when they use the term "vaporization", that they use the perfect technical definition - which is a false assumption, since they also call their phasers "rifles" even tough they are not. You can NOT assume that they use that word perfectly accurately unless it fits with the visuals - which it does NOT. They are likely using it in a colloquial sense most of the time, since we don't see any fucking vapor.

Quote:

if what you said were true they could have said they disintegrate or something else instead of vaporize. Why do they call it vaporize then? The popular theory is that phasers turn the body into neutrinos causing them to disappear that way. Perhaps the heat that would have been given off from vaporization is controlled by turning the target into neutrinos before the heat can cause any damage.

If that is the case, then guess what - then it is NOT vaporized. "Turned into neutrinos" is, by the way, a completely technobabble process with an unknown energy requirement. What you stated here is the exact same explanation used in the NDF-theory.

Quote:

All speculation aside, the real reason why vaporization doesn't look like what it should look like is because of the limitations in the visual effect of the scenes. Ronald D. Moore, writer and producer, says:

Invalid argument, dumbass. Not only does it violate suspension of disbelief, it also tells us NOTHING at all.

You know, you are really just a dumbass who likes to make shit up. You pull stuff out of your ass (like the "they just beam the vapor away"-idiocy), you try to butcher suspension of disbelief AND you appeal to unknown phenomena in order to wank them as much as you wank yourself every night.

darthy, you ignored my second example which is from the CG Clone Wars series. The inflating/deflating Malevolence. So SW still has T-Canon level space time compression technology at its service. You fail.

Also, funny how you're suddenly so eager to bring canonicity into the debate when you just before dedicated an entire thread to "prove" that there's no canon at all in SW due to "alterable timelines". You're such a dishonest, hypocritical piece of bumfuck, you know. BTW, does the word "n-canon" ring a bell in regards to that? That's were alternate timelines belong, like White Wedding Suit Vader and any idea you might have about paper-clad Star Destroyers..

If the phasers were dumping energy into him to raise the water/tissue to vaporization/incineration levels, one has to wonder why he's not obviously being cooked? you'd expect to see steam coming off him, flesh charring, visible evidence of burns, etc. I mean hell, his eyeballs look untouched! I'm also debating whether you could simply just dump an arbitrary amount of energy into someone with zero effect like that, barring some sort of magical force field or psychic intervention. Also why aren't his clothes smouldering or catching fire?

The other obvious point is that the guy's torso is quite obviously hollowed out to make room for the alien, which complicates claims of vaporizing the torso.

It might be possible to calc the "head exploding" bit but even that is a long shot. I'd have to watch the episode or a clip of the scene again.

Saying "i see no vapor, therefore it did not get turned into vapor" is perfectly valid and not a fallacy.

ouch yes it is. That thing has fallacies all over it. Here's a couple: Negative Proof Fallacy and Denying the Antecedent

in this format:

1. If P has been observed then P exists 2. P has not been observed 3. Therefore P does not exist

Plus there are cases where we do see vapor anyway.

But using this same logic:"I see vapor therefore it is getting turned into vapor"

Quote:

If that is the case, then guess what - then it is NOT vaporized. "Turned into neutrinos" is, by the way, a completely technobabble process with an unknown energy requirement. What you stated here is the exact same explanation used in the NDF-theory.

we also saw in episode "extreme risk" that a phaser created a force field. Force fields could be used to protect the surrounding environment from extreme heat the way it did in episode "Lessons". Some sort of force field phenomena could be at work to contain the heat of the target while it's being vaporized before disappearing where ever it disappears to.

Quote:

Moron. The technical definition of the word "rifle" means "shoulder-fired firearm with a rifled barrel". A firearm is further defined as "a weapon that projects one or several projectiles via chemical propellant".Likewise, the technical definition of "vaporization" means "turned into vapor by rapid heating" (otherwise it's just evaporation). You assume that, when they use the term "vaporization", that they use the perfect technical definition - which is a false assumption, since they also call their phasers "rifles" even tough they are not. You can NOT assume that they use that word perfectly accurately unless it fits with the visuals - which it does NOT. They are likely using it in a colloquial sense most of the time, since we don't see any fucking vapor.

Appeal to authority by acting like there's only one technical definition that's considered correct (e.g. "THE technical definition" instead of "one technical definition") and ad hominem by acting like calling me a moron strengthens your case. It fits with the visuals if we assume the dialogue is correct and that an explanation exists with suspension of disbelief. To say that an explanation does not exist just because you don't see how is committing a lack of imagination fallacy.

Quote:

Invalid argument, dumbass. Not only does it violate suspension of disbelief, it also tells us NOTHING at all.

It means that while you ponder the meaning of vaporization the writers are telling you in so many words: "yes, when we say vaporization we mean vaporization".

Quote:

If that is the case, then guess what - then it is NOT vaporized. "Turned into neutrinos" is, by the way, a completely technobabble process with an unknown energy requirement. What you stated here is the exact same explanation used in the NDF-theory.

Or turned into vapor just before being turned into neutrinos.

See no one can prove that vaporization is not occurring just from looking at the visuals. Nothing can be used from science to completey disprove vaporization. No theory in science is infallible because all theories are falsifiable by definition of the scientific method. That means that just because we don't see extreme heat and vapor afterwards does not prove with absolute certainty that the object wasn't vaporized. At best you can say there's no known way to vaporize a person without creating extreme heat everywhere around them but there could still be a way that is not known. Got it now?

darthy, you ignored my second example which is from the CG Clone Wars series. The inflating/deflating Malevolence. So SW still has T-Canon level space time compression technology at its service. You fail.

You're right I did ignore it, what's all that about? I figured it was wrong. Let me guess, you or someone else did some scaling to determine the size of the Malevolence varied based on what scene you watched because your calculations says so? The size of the malevolence is not known. If you want to make a fool of yourself though and elaborate why you think the malevolence is inflating and deflating, be my guest.

Quote:

Also, funny how you're suddenly so eager to bring canonicity into the debate when you just before dedicated an entire thread to "prove" that there's no canon at all in SW due to "alterable timelines". You're such a dishonest, hypocritical piece of bumfuck, you know. BTW, does the word "n-canon" ring a bell in regards to that? That's were alternate timelines belong, like White Wedding Suit Vader and any idea you might have about paper-clad Star Destroyers..

A dead issue. N-canon is where something is contradicted by higher canon. There's no contradiction if time travel is used to change history since it's allowable within the canon world to do so.

Quote:

If the phasers were dumping energy into him to raise the water/tissue to vaporization/incineration levels, one has to wonder why he's not obviously being cooked? you'd expect to see steam coming off him, flesh charring, visible evidence of burns, etc. I mean hell, his eyeballs look untouched! I'm also debating whether you could simply just dump an arbitrary amount of energy into someone with zero effect like that, barring some sort of magical force field or psychic intervention. Also why aren't his clothes smouldering or catching fire?

1. If P has been observed then P exists2. P has not been observed3. Therefore P does not exist

Which IS valid reasoning. If i do not observe something, i have no reason to assume that it does exist.

Quote:

"I see vapor therefore it is getting turned into vapor"

Which is ALSO valid reasoning. Unfortunately, any vapor we observe is far to small in volume to account for the effects we see. Therefore, while some material might have been vaporized, the target itself was not completely vaporized. See my cooking-example above,

darthy wrote:

we also saw in episode "extreme risk" that a phaser created a force field. Force fields could be used to protect the surrounding environment from extreme heat the way it did in episode "Lessons". Some sort of force field phenomena could be at work to contain the heat of the target while it's being vaporized before disappearing where ever it disappears to.

If the target just "dissappears", then why vaporize it in the first place? Why assume vaporization?

darthy wrote:

Appeal to authority by acting like there's only one technical definition that's considered correct (e.g. "THE technical definition" instead of "one technical definition") and ad hominem by acting like calling me a moron strengthens your case.

Learn your fallacies, idiot.First of all, i did not say "you are a moron, therefore you are wrong". That would be an ad hominem. But rather i said "you are always wrong, as shown here and here, and therefore a moron". The moron-part does not impact my argument and is therefore not a logical fallacy.Second, i did not appeal to any authority. Those ARE the technical definitions of those words. Go buy a dictionary. By your logic, i could dispute ANY definition of any word - according to my definition, snow is "a white substance" rather than "frozen water in a fine cristalline form". Therefore, that white powder line in front of me is not illegal at all - no officer, believe me!

darthy wrote:

It fits with the visuals if we assume the dialogue is correct and that an explanation exists with suspension of disbelief. To say that an explanation does not exist just because you don't see how is committing a lack of imagination fallacy.

"Lack of imagination fallacy"? STOP MAKING SHIT UP! There is no such fallacy, and it is evident that you don't even know what a fallacy is. Did i mention that you should buy a dictionary?Your explanation is NOT consistent with suspension of disbelief. The NDF-theory is. You are depening on writers intent, which is not valid within suspension of disbelief.

darthy wrote:

Or turned into vapor just before being turned into neutrinos.

As evidenced by - what exactly?

darthy wrote:

See no one can prove that vaporization is not occurring just from looking at the visuals.

And YOU are accusing me of using a negative proof fallacy? No one can proof that they are not teleported into another dimension full of candy and willfull virgins, or that they are not turned into magic pixie duest either.Besides, you are WRONG. I have shown that there is NO VAPOR (or insufficent amounts). Without vapor, there can not be any vaporization. Of course you handwave that away by saying "oh, it just dissapears instantly". Ever heard of Occams Razor? "Do not add unnecessary terms". Hey, how about, before it get's turned into vapor, it get's turned into antimatter and then into strangelets and then....

darthy wrote:

No theory in science is infallible because all theories are falsifiable by definition of the scientific method.

I do not need science to be infalliable in order to make my argument. However, it is YOUR job to show how it is false here. Vaporization does, by definition, require vapor as a product. You have not shown such vapor in sufficient amounts.

darthy wrote:

That means that just because we don't see extreme heat and vapor afterwards does not prove with absolute certainty that the object wasn't vaporized.

"Just because we can't observe Santa Claus, that doesn't prove with absoute certainty that there is no Santa Claus". You see, whilte it APPEARS that parents buy the presents and put them under the tree, and while we have observed them doing so, it's really just an elaborate trick - you can't prove it's not, because it's an elaborate trick and magic!!Seriously, and YOU are trying to lecture me about fallacies?

darthy wrote:

At best you can say there's no known way to vaporize a person without creating extreme heat everywhere around them but there could still be a way that is not known. Got it now?

Sure, who gives a damn about thermodynamics

darthy, your argument has devolved into "you can't prove my made-up stuff is wrong, nener nener". You have to show that your theory is superior to ours.

1. If P has been observed then P exists 2. P has not been observed 3. Therefore P does not exist

It's a hole in your logic which leaves open to the possibility that you could be wrong. You're assuming there isn't some kind of exotic phenomena taking place to prevent all the vapor from being seen. If star trek has produced technology like holodecks, replicators, and transporters I wouldn't be so quick to rule out an exotic effect like that.

Quote:

If the target just "dissappears", then why vaporize it in the first place? Why assume vaporization?

so that the dialogue and visuals are not in conflict. Dialogue is only thrown out if there is no rationalization to explain the visuals. I've already given you some.

Quote:

First of all, i did not say "you are a moron, therefore you are wrong". That would be an ad hominem. But rather i said "you are always wrong, as shown here and here, and therefore a moron". The moron-part does not impact my argument and is therefore not a logical fallacy.

good, you can give the name calling a rest then I heard you the first few dozen times.

Quote:

Second, i did not appeal to any authority. Those ARE the technical definitions of those words. Go buy a dictionary. By your logic, i could dispute ANY definition of any word - according to my definition, snow is "a white substance" rather than "frozen water in a fine cristalline form". Therefore, that white powder line in front of me is not illegal at all - no officer, believe me!

It's not really a figure of speech to call a phaser rifle a rifle if we use the definition of a rifle to be a shoulder weapon. The appeal to authority comes from assuming your definition is more accurate than the others in order to prove your point.

Quote:

"Lack of imagination fallacy"? STOP MAKING SHIT UP! There is no such fallacy, and it is evident that you don't even know what a fallacy is. Did i mention that you should buy a dictionary?

sad girl... does it occur even occur to you to even google before setting yourself up like that?

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is: there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to "prove" the proposition to be either true or false

If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.

Quote:

Your explanation is NOT consistent with suspension of disbelief. The NDF-theory is. You are depening on writers intent, which is not valid within suspension of disbelief.

you SURE like TO capitalize YOUR words ALOT don't YOU? Makes you look a little dense, no offense.

It might be used to refer to the willingness of the audience to overlook the limitations of a medium, so that these do not interfere with the acceptance of those premises. These fictional premises may also lend to the engagement of the mind and perhaps proposition of thoughts, ideas, art and theories.

Complete conversion into neutrinos. Although there are no known nuclear processes which can convert matter completely into neutrinos, this would appear to be the only possible destination which does not violate the core fundamental physical laws. It can't become vapour, it can't become plasma, it can't leave the universe, it can't disappear into the zero-point domain, and it can't turn into photons. Therefore, it must turn into something even smaller than nucleons. However, no matter how small that particle may be, it cannot have an electric charge since charged particles, regardless of size, interact with matter (remember the power of electromagnetic interactions- they are the only thing that keep you from walking through walls). Even quarks, which carry fractional charge, will interact strongly with matter for this reason alone, in spite of their tiny mass. So we know that the matter must become something which is very small, and electrically neutral. The answer? Neutrinos. Billions upon trillions of neutrinos could pass through every square millimetre of your body and you would never notice it. They carry mass and energy, and they can potentially remove an arbitrary amount of energy from the locality of a disintegrating mass without any noticeable effects, unlike all of the other explanations advanced so far.

I just love how the best explanation known for the disappearance of matter is one which he fully admits doesn't know how is possible and arrives at that conclusion only by removing the known methods without considering the existence of unknown methods. That's a pretty weak case to make folks.

Yet when I suggest what I've suggested you all dismiss it: - vaporized while being pushed into subspace. Where the material would no longer be visible and the heat would not pose a threat. It's been proven on star trek that large amounts of energy can cut into subspace.

- vaporized while being turned into neutrinos. Like how this site theorizes a person disappears when shot, I add onto it by saying they are vaporized while being turned into neutrinos.

- vaporized before being dematerialized by technology similar to a transporter. Transporters have been shown to give the illusion of someone being vaporized by a phaser like in episode "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges" and "gambit pt 1".

This allows the dialogue to become accurate with the visuals. A lot more reasonable than assuming the target is not vaporized just because you don't want them to be.

Saying "i see no vapor, therefore it did not get turned into vapor" is perfectly valid and not a fallacy

here's the form of the fallacy

Quote:

1. If P has been observed then P exists 2. P has not been observed 3. Therefore P does not exist

Your argument in so many words was:

1) If vapor has been observed then vapor exists2) vapor has not been observed3) therefore vapor does not exist

You really don't see it? A child could see this.

Quote:

No one can proof that they are not teleported into another dimension full of candy and willfull virgins, or that they are not turned into magic pixie duest either.

Perhaps but the dialogue isn't saying that they are being teleported to a place like that, they're saying that they're being vaporized.

Quote:

I do not need science to be infalliable in order to make my argument. However, it is YOUR job to show how it is false here. Vaporization does, by definition, require vapor as a product. You have not shown such vapor in sufficient amounts.

Actually star trek makes the claim that they are vaporized. You guys made the claim that they are not. It's up to you to prove they aren't being vaporized.

Quote:

"Just because we can't observe Santa Claus, that doesn't prove with absoute certainty that there is no Santa Claus". You see, whilte it APPEARS that parents buy the presents and put them under the tree, and while we have observed them doing so, it's really just an elaborate trick - you can't prove it's not, because it's an elaborate trick and magic!!Seriously, and YOU are trying to lecture me about fallacies?

You're right, you technically can't disprove there is no Santa Clause. And yes you could learn a lot from a good lecture on fallacies. Maybe you should take a logic course or something.

Quote:

darthy, your argument has devolved into "you can't prove my made-up stuff is wrong, nener nener". You have to show that your theory is superior to ours.

You guys say there is no vaporization and canon dialogue is incorrect, yet have no strong theories about what is really happening. I say there is vaporization and canon dialogue is correct but may not have a strong theory either. My ideas conform more with star trek canon so mine are superior. You'll never convince a real star trek fan that phasers don't vaporize

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum